If we become dependent on foreign sources for our military hardware, it could very suddenly render our forces ineffective at a critical time.
The recent report that the U.S. Air Force is about to buy a fleet of new air tankers from European manufacturer Airbus is not only disappointing; it is another example of the foolishness that is coming out of Washington DC of late. Foolishness that may lead to another step in reducing America's ability to properly defend itself in the future and this is not something which should be taken lightly. What is wrong has nothing to do with the Airbus product, although it is generally believed that Boeing does build a superior aircraft. The main problem lies, rather, with the state of the aircraft industry in the United States, and its potential effects on military capabilities.
Since the dawn of aviation approximately a century ago there were numerous companies involved in military aircraft contracts. Curtis Wright, Consolidated, North American, Lockheed, Republic, Douglas, Grumman and Boeing are probably the best known companies. All produced aircraft which contributed significantly to the Allied effort in World War II, and the large number of companies guaranteed an extremely competitive market place with maximum exposure for ideas and designs. Since then many of them have merged, some have ceased business, or have been bought out. Others have had to go into other product lines in order to stay profitable. We now have less companies and less competition. Worse still, our companies are now required to compete with foreign manufacturers for both civilian and military aircraft. Many US airlines are now using aircraft made in Europe, Canada, and Brazil. Boeing was reasonably expecting to build the new air tankers based on its 767 civilian platform, after the long term success of its KC-135, which was based on the 707 passenger aircraft. The KC-135 fleet has been working for the Air Force for some 50 years; a tribute to its quality and durability.
The current situation is based on two distinct issues. The first is a misplaced faith in a "free market" that isn't really free. Airbus, a company operated under a joint agreement of four European nations receives substantial subsidies and significantly favorable tax treatment in Europe, which carries over into its smaller subsidiaries here in North America. This grants it a competitive advantage over unsubsidized industries. It should also be noted that Airbus was created with the specific intent of significantly penetrating the airliner market previously dominated by Boeing and Douglas. Douglas eventually merged into Boeing or it might well have dissolved. It is no secret that Airbus would like to put Boeing completely out of the airliner business; something that US orders for the 767 tanker would help prevent. The Defense Dept. has already cancelled pending orders for another American built air tanker, based on the Douglas DC 10 aircraft; a model that had performed well in service so far.
The second issue is even more important. The American military has for some time been moving in the direction of buying "off the shelf" components in the interest of cutting costs. While reducing expenses is all well and good, it should not be achieved at the expense of military effectiveness. As Frank Gaffney points out, if we become dependent on foreign sources for our military hardware, it can very suddenly render our forces ineffective at a critical time. In 1991 during Operation Desert Storm "American officials had to plead with the government of Japan to intervene with a Japanese manufacturer to obtain replacement parts for equipment then being used to expel Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait." This should not have happened, and would not have if the parts were manufactured domestically by suppliers that could be counted on.
Part of the problem appears to be political. According to a number of sources the Boeing aircraft had been on track for approval until the specifications were changed in the last moment to match those of the Airbus product. This has been linked by some sources to the influence of lobbyists from the Loeffler Group who purportedly have become involved in the McCain presidential campaign. McCain has denied any improper behavior on his part in the deal, while many members of Congress have become incensed. See Der Spiegel on line. Meanwhile, one has to wonder why lobbyists were involved in a process supposedly controlled by meeting specifications under competitive bidding.
Two thousand years ago the Roman Empire began hiring foreign mercenaries to replace its citizen soldiers who were loyal to their mother country by birth, training and cultural identification. Over time citizenship became cheap; particularly when the Emperor Caracalla made everyone living within the empire a citizen, regardless of other considerations. Caracalla’s actions were motivated by a desire to increase the tax base, but they also made citizenship much less meaningful.
Today we are fortunate in having a military that we can, so far, count on. They are not mercenaries, but citizens who have chosen military service as a sign of their devotion to their nation. If we cannot provide them with the equipment they need then their ability and willingness to fight for us becomes meaningless. Depending on foreign equipment is as risky as depending on foreign soldiers. Mercenaries can be bought off and foreign equipment makers may be well beyond the reach of our jurisdiction should they decide to break a contract, or to leave us in the lurch when we need them most.
Imagine if we had been relying on Swedish or Swiss made equipment in 1942. Both nations might have declined to supply us because they had declared neutrality in the conflict. And, with the rising influence of Islam in Western Europe, it is likely that France and England, both part of the Airbus consortium, might be pressured to back out of supplying America in a future conflict with Islamo-fascistic interests in Western Asia. France, in any event, might decline to do so out of sheer anti-American sentiment. The Sarkozy government will not last forever. The potential damage could be staggering if our military is depending on foreign components in more than just a few aircraft. And, the lack of a dependable refueling fleet could cripple our Air Force’s ability to reach a theater of operations on the other side of the world.
Free market economic theorists have long touted imports as a producer of wealth for the importer, which presumably gets more value for their money. This may be true, in the case of consumer goods, which are not going to be vital to the nation’s survival any time soon. But in the case of military hardware, we simply cannot have that same trust. It is much too risky in a dangerous and unstable world.
slaib@intellectualconservative.com
http://intellectualconservative.com
Read more articles by Steven D. Laib
To start with, I agree with you 100%. We need to be independent of any outside interference.
Then reality appears and it gets complicated.
The idea of buying only American-made defense items is certainly advisable, but doing today is impossible. The EADS/Northrop Grumman KC-45 is just about as American as anything else. Virtually all of the systems are made by "American" companies. Many of these companies are also involved in the Boeing KC-767. Wind design for the EADS entry is in Wichita, Kansas. Wing and fuselage construction for the B-767 are in Japan. Engines for the EADS entry are made in Ohio using parts made in the USA and in France. Engines for the Boeing entry are assembled in Connecticut with parts made in the US, Canada and Germany. The electronics for both are assembled in the US from parts made in Mexico, Vietnam, Canada, Spain, Indonesia, Malasia and China.
The point is that NONE of today's aircraft is entirely made in the US. In fact, many of the individual components do not have production capability of ANY kind in the US. In fact, a very high percentage of the electronic parts are available only from manufacturers located in what appears to be our most likely opponent in the next conflict. US manufacturers are driven by cost concerns to use "emerging region" manufacturing facilities. Were the US to only use "American" made parts, the cost of those parts would increase by as much as 10 times.The result would be a tanker costing not $150 million per copy, but rather $1.5 billion per copy.
Try to consider this as you drive your Mexican-made Chevrolet or your American-made Nissan to the store to buy Chilean produce, French cheese and Chinese seafood.
Comment by bucky | March 14, 2008